20140408, 06:18  #133 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2^{7}×71 Posts 
Your binaries work fine, Jerry. Thanks from all of us!
In the meantime, I've got a full Studio 2012, uninstalled all 2013 mscrap, installed 2012, uninstalled CUDA5.5 (it was configured on the fly to not work, because "you have an unsupported version of the studio; only 2008, 2010, 2012 are supported", and that crap doesn't go away even after 2012 is installed), installed 6.0. Testcase: 1. (I forgot to edit that into mfaktc.ini) change "SievePrimesMin=2000". This is because we are in a very low range in GMQs, still, compared to M. 2. Selftests (8 of them) pass; that's already good. 3. Use "Factor=gm,4748941,1,60" in worktodo.txt 4. Get this in results.txt: Code:
(2^47489412^2374471+1)/5 has a factor : 1326550183177 [TF:1:60:mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32] 2^4748941+2^2374471+1 has a factor : 1401773408617 [TF:1:60:mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32] found 2 factors for GM(Q)4748941 from 2^ 1 to 2^60 [mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32] 
20140408, 23:46  #134 
"Jerry"
Nov 2011
Vancouver, WA
1,123 Posts 
You're welcome. Do you still want CUDA 5.5 binaries?

20140409, 00:41  #135 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2^{7}·71 Posts 
They might be good for the people who would rather run it as they would mfaktc (with just libcudart64_55_....dll in the same directory; I don't know how volatile the libcudart64_60 will be). I probably will continue to run my linux binaries.
I have now restored my dev environment at home, too. (I've P.S. I wrote the thing because I anticipated another long stretch to go for both GM and EM, but they both succumbed! I, frankly, will wrap my search after I will finish the range that I reserved. Warning: the new FFT size is imminent at or after 5.1M, too. The tests will be quite like watching the paint dry. Maybe a should start a new Last fiddled with by Batalov on 20140409 at 00:47 
20140409, 01:44  #136  
"Jerry"
Nov 2011
Vancouver, WA
1,123 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
I attached Windows binaries for CUDA 5.5 sm 1.1, 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, & 3.5 Untested with no changes to code. .ini in root is updated per the post above. If anyone needs anything else, let me know. EDIT: I just saw this post: Quote:
Last fiddled with by flashjh on 20140409 at 01:53 

20140409, 05:59  #137 
Jun 2003
2×3^{3}×29 Posts 
Once you use the exe, is there a way to make it just search for GQ factors of GM factors. How do you produce an input file for LLR from the output of the program.

20140409, 07:16  #138 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2380_{16} Posts 
Not at this time. You simply get all factors in the requested bitrange. It is running the program that is computationally expensive (and the runtime is the same* regardless if you are searching for one kind, for another or for both), while filtering is extremely easy and instantaneous. All filters can be easily done with grep. If there's a "(2^", then it is a GQ factor, if not, then it's a GM factor.
The benefit is that you can later run "Factor=gm,#######,60,61" and combine the output data in any fashion you want. One option that could be good to add is to stop when factors on both sides are found, but my next free time window is not soon. Any volunteers to add this? The source is open. ______ *and the same is true for llr 
20140515, 08:37  #139 
May 2005
2·809 Posts 
I have finally finished my range till 2M. Citrix + Batalov  what is your status?

20140516, 03:08  #140 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2^{7}·71 Posts 
I am at 5.0M for GMs and at 4.7M for "GQonly"s.

20140903, 17:45  #141  
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2^{7}×71 Posts 
Quote:
I can doublecheck everything up to 3.5M+delta, and check up to 3.85M, if this range is now abandoned. If it is not abandoned, please let us know. __________________________ Also, on another topic: I'd like to share with you my recent realization that Gaussian Mersenne norms are Generalized unique primes, too. For example GM(4792057) = Phi(4, 2^23960291)/2. Recall that Phi(4, x) = x^2+1 and Generalized unique primes are Phi(n,x)/gcd(n,Phi(n,x)); gcd(4,Phi(4, odd x)) is 2. For EM norms, similarly gcd()=3. Mike Oakes would probably say that this is a trivial observation, and it definitely is. 

20140904, 03:47  #142  
Jun 2003
61E_{16} Posts 
Quote:
I can provide you the presieved file and list of the 1020% of candidates that I tested before, but if LLR is missing factors, it might be best to start this range from scratch. 

20140904, 21:54  #143 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2^{7}·71 Posts 
I am not trying to dissuade you to run this range (nor my initial message about missed factors was aimed at that).
I see a common thread here with something that I hear sometimes at the PrimeGrid forums: "we need to get the prefactoring (a.k.a sieving) done precisely right. If we have problems with sieving, we cannot proceed. The whole hell will break loose. That's why we sieve with replication factor 2." But that is not true. (It is even worse to do that sieivng in duplicate, but LLR with adaptive replication. Oh, the horror. Oh, the misplaced priorities.) Let's consider the pipeline of testing. You have a finite set of candidates. You remove some by prefactoring. Then you N1test. What happens if 12... or even 20 out of a few thousand factors are lost? Nothing too bad. You will run an unnecessary N1 test and you will not miss a prime. The only danger you can have is when a factor is reported when there is none. When the factor is invalid. But this is easy (instantaneous!) to check with Pari/GP! This can be done before N1testing, at the same time, or even after! If an invalid factor is found, throw the candidate back into N1 testing pool again, and you are done. What is important is keep all work (all factors and all residues) and in the end tally up against the input set, and (optionally) retest some N1 tests and all factors (because this last part is insanely cheap). Is it good to have all factors removed?  yes, you bet. Is it important to have all factors removed?  no! A miniscule loss is acceptable, because it is righted at the next step. Is it right to throw you hands in the air and say "nothing works, so I will just sit and wait while someone repairs everything"?  I don't think so. There are multiple ways to proceed even with imperfect tools. Come to think of it, no tools are perfect. One cannot wait for the tools to become perfect and them proceed, because this moment will never come. That's just my 2 cents. You don't have a roadblock and you never had. You may have thought that you had but you didn't. With that, would you like to proceed? or proceed to a smaller range? 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
New PC dedicated to Mersenne Prime Search  Taiy  Hardware  12  20180102 15:54 
Gaussian integers use of norms  devarajkandadai  Number Theory Discussion Group  11  20171028 20:58 
Low clock speeds on Mersenne Prime search  Ammonia  Hardware  2  20160121 17:46 
Testing Mersenne cofactors for primality?  CRGreathouse  Computer Science & Computational Number Theory  18  20130608 19:12 
Can I specify the range to search the Mersenne Prime?  Unregistered  Information & Answers  22  20120320 11:38 